Certainly not surprising.. deficit red. poll

jeffkrol · 01-03-2011, 03:01 PM

Poll: To Reduce Deficit, Most Americans say Tax the Rich More - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Quote:

A survey from CBS News' "60 Minutes" and Vanity Fair magazine shows that most Americans, given a set limited choices for balancing the national budget, would prefer to see taxes increased for the wealthy.

As many as 61 percent said they would prefer increasing taxes on the rich over three other options: cutting defense spending, cutting Medicare or cutting Social Security. Another 20 percent chose cutting defense spending as the best option. Just 4 percent said they would cut Medicare, and just 3 percent said they would cut Social Security.

Perhaps not surprisingly, those with higher incomes were less inclined to say increasing taxes on the wealthy would be the best option. Nevertheless, as many as 46 percent of Americans making more than $100,000 said it was the best option -- 26 points higher than the next-preferred option, cutting defense spending.

skyredoubt · 01-03-2011, 03:44 PM - **1 Like**

Let me get on my hobby horse here:
-Even though it may sound outrageous, the correct understanding of our monetary system and the current economic situation suggests that the deficits are too small right now, since, by accounting identity, govt deficits = private surpluses, dollar-for-dollar, which means that the lack of aggregate demand which we find ourselves in is a manifestation of the private sector's desire to net-save. As long as the private sector keeps wanting to save more than the govt injects into the economy, the govt better keep doing what it's doing: continue injecting "money" in whatever form (cash, bonds...)
In economic terms it makes no sense to tax anybody in this climate, including the filthy rich. There could be other good reason to tax them, though - such as a means of reducing income inequality or trying to reduce their political power, but this is getting into social engineering and is not an economic debate.

skyredoubt · 01-03-2011, 03:52 PM

If you really cannot live without cutting, start by pulling out of Afghanistan and wasting several billions a MONTH there right now, killing people. Immediately give this money back to every American, possibly starting with the states hit hardest by unemployment. Then see how economy picks up like a charm.

jimH · 01-03-2011, 05:04 PM

In the midst of all of this talk about reducing defense spending, nowhere does anyone talk about what affect the reducing of our defense has on our security. And if we, and the rest of the free world, aren't secure, where does that leave us, long term? Is our overall financial situation in any better shape? That is unless the rest of the free world steps up and picks up the slack both financially and in blood. Just asking.

Ratmagiclady · 01-03-2011, 05:33 PM - **1 Like**

Funny how they'll say that a culture can thrive without supporting *art* for pennies per capita for year, but not throwing good money after bad in countries Bush bollixed the 'mission' in reduces our 'security?' Anyone felt 'secure' lately?

What reduced our 'security' was spending our military on very profitably paying the same rich to make targets of our fighting youth, while the preachers try and make our military into an Evangelical army, and I do not exaggerate.

You bet we ought to tax the rich: they're the only ones really making out, here, and maybe they'll have less 'incentive' to keep making the whole lot of it worse. There's nothing 'secure' about them collecting the bills when our military's in hock to... Who, again? Oh, right, them. Ain't always about the 'budget' so much as who cashes the checks, you know.

jimH · 01-03-2011, 05:58 PM - **1 Like**

It's amazing how people can pretend that Bush was the cause of the wars that we are involved in now, when in reality the wars were a response to attacks on our security. I guess it's all in your particular political bent.

Wheatfield · 01-03-2011, 06:20 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by jimH

It's amazing how people can pretend that Bush was the cause of the wars that we are involved in now, when in reality the wars were a response to attacks on our security. I guess it's all in your particular political bent.

It's amazing how people can pretend that the wars were a response to attacks on our security when in reality the attacks on our security were a response to several decades of poisonous American foreign policy.
It's amazing that anyone can still pretend that the Iraq war was anything more than a vendetta against an ex lap dog who dared to thumb his nose at his ex master.

It really is all in your political bent.

Ratmagiclady · 01-03-2011, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by jimH

It's amazing how people can pretend that Bush was the cause of the wars that we are involved in now, when in reality the wars were a response to attacks on our security. I guess it's all in your particular political bent.

Really, now. 'Response.' That why they lied about Iraq and WMDs? And rushed to get us stuck in while actually pulling our troops away from the actual target , to make a case for Iraq, even though it had nothing to do with 'attacks' and screwed up the whole region for ten years running? Making a general *security disaster* out of what had at least been one dictator, however bad, with some interest in stability?

'Response.' Right. Attacking a totally-different country on a pretense of 'security' even though the whole rest of the world said, 'It'll only destabilize the whole region,' and our best general said, 'Pottery barn' and *resigned* after being ordered to sell it?

That's no response, and if it was, it was a crappy, insane, incompetenty-executed, but very profitable for a few response.

Excuse, more like.

'Secure?' What a joke. If that all made things 'secure' I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have had to submit to a rent-a-cop groping to go see the in-laws this past Thanksgiving.

'Response' would have been one (1) military spec metric sh-- ton of you-know-what-comes-in-this-can directly applied to Tora Bora, and *done.* What next, kids. Ready?

What happened was no 'response,' it was a Cheney/Rummy/Bush wish list of 'Mushroom cloud WMD God Spoke To me What Are You Traitor Support Our Troops It'll Pay for Itself But It's Not For Oil Rose Parade Welcomed As Liberators What me Plan?' ...that had nothing to do with anything *but* that cadre in the White House.

jeffkrol · 01-03-2011, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by skyredoubt

Let me get on my hobby horse here:
-Even though it may sound outrageous, the correct understanding of our monetary system and the current economic situation suggests that the deficits are too small right now, since, by accounting identity, govt deficits = private surpluses, dollar-for-dollar, which means that the lack of aggregate demand which we find ourselves in is a manifestation of the private sector's desire to net-save. As long as the private sector keeps wanting to save more than the govt injects into the economy, the govt better keep doing what it's doing: continue injecting "money" in whatever form (cash, bonds...)
In economic terms it makes no sense to tax anybody in this climate, including the filthy rich. There could be other good reason to tax them, though - such as a means of reducing income inequality or trying to reduce their political power, but this is getting into social engineering and is not an economic debate.

I'm on your side... sorry to bring these polls up but it is apparently impossible to educate the masses.....

a society is "social engineering" .......
Taxing the rich is a sociological move. Point is we are putting people in power that could care less of reality and more for their own micro interests.....
Now, how to convince the "powers that be" that they are mistaken when they have the uneducated support of the masses supporting these "closet" interests.......

Certainly you could see the social harm in giving everyone 25% more income by fiat and not at least pretending to scale it ie upper 10% get only 5%
I get $10,000 but that guy gets $100,000 is a hard sell......

Nesster · 01-04-2011, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by jimH

In the midst of all of this talk about reducing defense spending, nowhere does anyone talk about what affect the reducing of our defense has on our security. And if we, and the rest of the free world, aren't secure, where does that leave us, long term? Is our overall financial situation in any better shape? That is unless the rest of the free world steps up and picks up the slack both financially and in blood. Just asking.

I wonder about that - how when it comes to defense spending there's no room for efficiency and the cutting of waste, but when it comes to spending on citizens it seems to be all inefficiencies and waste. Just asking.

Uncle_dad · 01-04-2011, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

What happened was no 'response,' it was a Cheney/Rummy/Bush wish list of 'Mushroom cloud WMD God Spoke To me What Are You Traitor Support Our Troops It'll Pay for Itself But It's Not For Oil Rose Parade Welcomed As Liberators What me Plan?' ...that had nothing to do with anything *but* that cadre in the White House.

I think it rather funny that people like Bush and Obama are elected when in fact they should not have even been considered. Just proves the White House is the Stage for the puppet show that we see.
The fact Obama won the Nobel shows the worldwide scope of it all. Yet they keep us fighting each other. The old ploy of divide and conquer. Misdirection. Keep them looking in the wrong places, and we play right along.
It's all about keeping the ship going in the right direction. Obama is just the lastest figurehead to front it. They will throw him under the bus if needed. Same as they did Bush.
Doesn't make any difference to them. Long as the ship keeps going the right way.
They are just doing the best they can to hide where the ship is really going.
Who is running the show really? Soros ? Bilderburg Group? Who knows. I really don't think it's the clowns we see on the stage.
The reason nothing the government is doing makes any sense is because we expect the ship to be going in a different direction then it really is heading.
Being groped at the airport, our bags being searched because the government feels like it is what we have been in many wars to stop. But here we are allowing our way of life to be tossed away. We are being subjagated just as fast as we allow it. This so called "secuity measures" are nothing more then training us. Slowly stripping away "The American Way".
I think we are seeing the crumbling of the last great super power. Rotting from within like all great civilizations have. Our government has turned into the head of the festering infection that we are suffering from.
It truely breaks my heart to see this happening to our great country.
Like sheep being lead to slaughter.

skyredoubt · 01-04-2011, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by jeffkrol

I'm on your side... sorry to bring these polls up but it is apparently impossible to educate the masses.....

a society is "social engineering" .......
Taxing the rich is a sociological move. Point is we are putting people in power that could care less of reality and more for their own micro interests.....
Now, how to convince the "powers that be" that they are mistaken when they have the uneducated support of the masses supporting these "closet" interests.......

Certainly you could see the social harm in giving everyone 25% more income by fiat and not at least pretending to scale it ie upper 10% get only 5%
I get $10,000 but that guy gets $100,000 is a hard sell......

No problem, Jeff, I am not attacking you at all. but we have to start somewhere. The masses are us and we can be educated.
We're asking the wrong questions. Instead on concentrating on the correct way of building the future and prosperous nation, we're asking the nonsensical question of "how to pay for that". It might take time, but eventually the truth will out and people will realize they've been misled for too long, just like it was realized the Earth is not flat.

Pass it along:

Lynn Parramore: The Deficit: Nine Myths We Can't Afford

skyredoubt · 01-04-2011, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Uncle_dad

Who is running the show really? Soros ?

I wish (as much as I am against any one person running the show)! Soros gets it almost right:

The Real Danger to the Economy by George Soros | The New York Review of Books

Quote:

The idea that we must cut the budget deficit at a time of high unemployment is such a misconception. Admittedly, it would be unsound for the US to preserve current imbalances by accumulating government debt indefinitely. Once the economy starts growing again interest rates will rise and if the accumulated debt is too big it may rise precipitously, choking off the recovery. But premature fiscal tightening is worse because it is liable to choke off the recovery prematurely.
The right policy is to reduce the imbalances as quickly as possible. This can be done in a number of ways, but cutting the budget deficit in half by 2013 while the economy is operating far below capacity is not one of them. Investing in infrastructure and education makes more sense. So does engineering a moderate rate of inflation by depreciating the dollar against the renminbi. What stands in the way is the misconception that budget deficits must be reduced to help the economy recover, a notion that has been exploited for partisan political purposes. There is a real danger that the premature pursuit of fiscal rectitude may wreck the recovery.

newarts · 01-04-2011, 09:51 AM

Republican politicians are in a bind unless they are total idiots, which is generally not the case:

1) They know that taxing the rich more makes sense because the rich have more money.
2) They promised they wouldn't tax the rich more in order to get elected.
3) If they break that promise they lose the donations they need to be re-elected.

How can they escape this logical trap? Term Limits maybe?

JohnInIndy · 01-04-2011, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by jeffkrol

Poll: To Reduce Deficit, Most Americans say Tax the Rich More - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

CBS? Not too biased to the left now is it? Of course they are. Lets get some unbiased results shall we?

And remember it also depends on how the question is asked.

What about adding "Create tax/business incentives so businesses hire more thereby increasing the tax base of productive Americans?"

01-03-2011, 03:01 PM	#1
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Certainly not surprising.. deficit red. poll Poll: To Reduce Deficit, Most Americans say Tax the Rich More - Political Hotsheet - CBS News Quote: A survey from CBS News' "60 Minutes" and Vanity Fair magazine shows that most Americans, given a set limited choices for balancing the national budget, would prefer to see taxes increased for the wealthy. As many as 61 percent said they would prefer increasing taxes on the rich over three other options: cutting defense spending, cutting Medicare or cutting Social Security. Another 20 percent chose cutting defense spending as the best option. Just 4 percent said they would cut Medicare, and just 3 percent said they would cut Social Security. Perhaps not surprisingly, those with higher incomes were less inclined to say increasing taxes on the wealthy would be the best option. Nevertheless, as many as 46 percent of Americans making more than $100,000 said it was the best option -- 26 points higher than the next-preferred option, cutting defense spending.

01-03-2011, 06:22 PM	#8
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by jimH It's amazing how people can pretend that Bush was the cause of the wars that we are involved in now, when in reality the wars were a response to attacks on our security. I guess it's all in your particular political bent. Really, now. 'Response.' That why they lied about Iraq and WMDs? And rushed to get us stuck in while actually pulling our troops away from the actual target , to make a case for Iraq, even though it had nothing to do with 'attacks' and screwed up the whole region for ten years running? Making a general security disaster out of what had at least been one dictator, however bad, with some interest in stability? 'Response.' Right. Attacking a totally-different country on a pretense of 'security' even though the whole rest of the world said, 'It'll only destabilize the whole region,' and our best general said, 'Pottery barn' and resigned after being ordered to sell it? That's no response, and if it was, it was a crappy, insane, incompetenty-executed, but very profitable for a few response. Excuse, more like. 'Secure?' What a joke. If that all made things 'secure' I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have had to submit to a rent-a-cop groping to go see the in-laws this past Thanksgiving. 'Response' would have been one (1) military spec metric sh-- ton of you-know-what-comes-in-this-can directly applied to Tora Bora, and done. What next, kids. Ready? What happened was no 'response,' it was a Cheney/Rummy/Bush wish list of 'Mushroom cloud WMD God Spoke To me What Are You Traitor Support Our Troops It'll Pay for Itself But It's Not For Oil Rose Parade Welcomed As Liberators What me Plan?' ...that had nothing to do with anything but that cadre in the White House. Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 01-03-2011 at 06:40 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Surprising website numbers	CWyatt	Photographic Technique	8	06-29-2010 09:20 PM
From the Least Surprising News Ever Desk	deadwolfbones	General Talk	15	08-27-2009 12:16 AM
Surprising numbers	wildman	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	02-10-2009 12:32 PM
surprising reflection	mtnbearhug	Post Your Photos!	5	02-09-2008 12:18 PM
surprising vivitar 135mmf2.8	tipentax38	Post Your Photos!	7	06-15-2007 01:40 PM

01-03-2011, 03:44 PM - 1 Like	#2
skyredoubt Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Bronx, NY Posts: 243	Let me get on my hobby horse here: -Even though it may sound outrageous, the correct understanding of our monetary system and the current economic situation suggests that the deficits are too small right now, since, by accounting identity, govt deficits = private surpluses, dollar-for-dollar, which means that the lack of aggregate demand which we find ourselves in is a manifestation of the private sector's desire to net-save. As long as the private sector keeps wanting to save more than the govt injects into the economy, the govt better keep doing what it's doing: continue injecting "money" in whatever form (cash, bonds...) In economic terms it makes no sense to tax anybody in this climate, including the filthy rich. There could be other good reason to tax them, though - such as a means of reducing income inequality or trying to reduce their political power, but this is getting into social engineering and is not an economic debate.

01-03-2011, 03:52 PM	#3
skyredoubt Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Bronx, NY Posts: 243	If you really cannot live without cutting, start by pulling out of Afghanistan and wasting several billions a MONTH there right now, killing people. Immediately give this money back to every American, possibly starting with the states hit hardest by unemployment. Then see how economy picks up like a charm.

01-03-2011, 05:04 PM	#4
jimH Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Central Nebraska - USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,771	In the midst of all of this talk about reducing defense spending, nowhere does anyone talk about what affect the reducing of our defense has on our security. And if we, and the rest of the free world, aren't secure, where does that leave us, long term? Is our overall financial situation in any better shape? That is unless the rest of the free world steps up and picks up the slack both financially and in blood. Just asking.

01-03-2011, 05:33 PM - 1 Like	#5
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Funny how they'll say that a culture can thrive without supporting art for pennies per capita for year, but not throwing good money after bad in countries Bush bollixed the 'mission' in reduces our 'security?' Anyone felt 'secure' lately? What reduced our 'security' was spending our military on very profitably paying the same rich to make targets of our fighting youth, while the preachers try and make our military into an Evangelical army, and I do not exaggerate. You bet we ought to tax the rich: they're the only ones really making out, here, and maybe they'll have less 'incentive' to keep making the whole lot of it worse. There's nothing 'secure' about them collecting the bills when our military's in hock to... Who, again? Oh, right, them. Ain't always about the 'budget' so much as who cashes the checks, you know.

01-03-2011, 05:58 PM - 1 Like	#6
jimH Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Central Nebraska - USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,771	It's amazing how people can pretend that Bush was the cause of the wars that we are involved in now, when in reality the wars were a response to attacks on our security. I guess it's all in your particular political bent.

01-03-2011, 06:20 PM - 1 Like	#7
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by jimH It's amazing how people can pretend that Bush was the cause of the wars that we are involved in now, when in reality the wars were a response to attacks on our security. I guess it's all in your particular political bent. It's amazing how people can pretend that the wars were a response to attacks on our security when in reality the attacks on our security were a response to several decades of poisonous American foreign policy. It's amazing that anyone can still pretend that the Iraq war was anything more than a vendetta against an ex lap dog who dared to thumb his nose at his ex master. It really is all in your political bent.

01-03-2011, 06:35 PM	#9
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434 Original Poster	Originally posted by skyredoubt Let me get on my hobby horse here: -Even though it may sound outrageous, the correct understanding of our monetary system and the current economic situation suggests that the deficits are too small right now, since, by accounting identity, govt deficits = private surpluses, dollar-for-dollar, which means that the lack of aggregate demand which we find ourselves in is a manifestation of the private sector's desire to net-save. As long as the private sector keeps wanting to save more than the govt injects into the economy, the govt better keep doing what it's doing: continue injecting "money" in whatever form (cash, bonds...) In economic terms it makes no sense to tax anybody in this climate, including the filthy rich. There could be other good reason to tax them, though - such as a means of reducing income inequality or trying to reduce their political power, but this is getting into social engineering and is not an economic debate. I'm on your side... sorry to bring these polls up but it is apparently impossible to educate the masses..... a society is "social engineering" ....... Taxing the rich is a sociological move. Point is we are putting people in power that could care less of reality and more for their own micro interests..... Now, how to convince the "powers that be" that they are mistaken when they have the uneducated support of the masses supporting these "closet" interests....... Certainly you could see the social harm in giving everyone 25% more income by fiat and not at least pretending to scale it ie upper 10% get only 5% I get $10,000 but that guy gets $100,000 is a hard sell......

01-04-2011, 07:14 AM	#10
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by jimH In the midst of all of this talk about reducing defense spending, nowhere does anyone talk about what affect the reducing of our defense has on our security. And if we, and the rest of the free world, aren't secure, where does that leave us, long term? Is our overall financial situation in any better shape? That is unless the rest of the free world steps up and picks up the slack both financially and in blood. Just asking. I wonder about that - how when it comes to defense spending there's no room for efficiency and the cutting of waste, but when it comes to spending on citizens it seems to be all inefficiencies and waste. Just asking.

01-04-2011, 07:15 AM	#11
Uncle_dad Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Edgewater Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 111	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady What happened was no 'response,' it was a Cheney/Rummy/Bush wish list of 'Mushroom cloud WMD God Spoke To me What Are You Traitor Support Our Troops It'll Pay for Itself But It's Not For Oil Rose Parade Welcomed As Liberators What me Plan?' ...that had nothing to do with anything but that cadre in the White House. I think it rather funny that people like Bush and Obama are elected when in fact they should not have even been considered. Just proves the White House is the Stage for the puppet show that we see. The fact Obama won the Nobel shows the worldwide scope of it all. Yet they keep us fighting each other. The old ploy of divide and conquer. Misdirection. Keep them looking in the wrong places, and we play right along. It's all about keeping the ship going in the right direction. Obama is just the lastest figurehead to front it. They will throw him under the bus if needed. Same as they did Bush. Doesn't make any difference to them. Long as the ship keeps going the right way. They are just doing the best they can to hide where the ship is really going. Who is running the show really? Soros ? Bilderburg Group? Who knows. I really don't think it's the clowns we see on the stage. The reason nothing the government is doing makes any sense is because we expect the ship to be going in a different direction then it really is heading. Being groped at the airport, our bags being searched because the government feels like it is what we have been in many wars to stop. But here we are allowing our way of life to be tossed away. We are being subjagated just as fast as we allow it. This so called "secuity measures" are nothing more then training us. Slowly stripping away "The American Way". I think we are seeing the crumbling of the last great super power. Rotting from within like all great civilizations have. Our government has turned into the head of the festering infection that we are suffering from. It truely breaks my heart to see this happening to our great country. Like sheep being lead to slaughter.

01-04-2011, 09:15 AM	#12
skyredoubt Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Bronx, NY Posts: 243	Originally posted by jeffkrol I'm on your side... sorry to bring these polls up but it is apparently impossible to educate the masses..... a society is "social engineering" ....... Taxing the rich is a sociological move. Point is we are putting people in power that could care less of reality and more for their own micro interests..... Now, how to convince the "powers that be" that they are mistaken when they have the uneducated support of the masses supporting these "closet" interests....... Certainly you could see the social harm in giving everyone 25% more income by fiat and not at least pretending to scale it ie upper 10% get only 5% I get $10,000 but that guy gets $100,000 is a hard sell...... No problem, Jeff, I am not attacking you at all. but we have to start somewhere. The masses are us and we can be educated. We're asking the wrong questions. Instead on concentrating on the correct way of building the future and prosperous nation, we're asking the nonsensical question of "how to pay for that". It might take time, but eventually the truth will out and people will realize they've been misled for too long, just like it was realized the Earth is not flat. Pass it along: Lynn Parramore: The Deficit: Nine Myths We Can't Afford

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-04-2011, 09:21 AM	#13
skyredoubt Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Bronx, NY Posts: 243	Originally posted by Uncle_dad Who is running the show really? Soros ? I wish (as much as I am against any one person running the show)! Soros gets it almost right: The Real Danger to the Economy by George Soros \| The New York Review of Books Quote: The idea that we must cut the budget deficit at a time of high unemployment is such a misconception. Admittedly, it would be unsound for the US to preserve current imbalances by accumulating government debt indefinitely. Once the economy starts growing again interest rates will rise and if the accumulated debt is too big it may rise precipitously, choking off the recovery. But premature fiscal tightening is worse because it is liable to choke off the recovery prematurely. The right policy is to reduce the imbalances as quickly as possible. This can be done in a number of ways, but cutting the budget deficit in half by 2013 while the economy is operating far below capacity is not one of them. Investing in infrastructure and education makes more sense. So does engineering a moderate rate of inflation by depreciating the dollar against the renminbi. What stands in the way is the misconception that budget deficits must be reduced to help the economy recover, a notion that has been exploited for partisan political purposes. There is a real danger that the premature pursuit of fiscal rectitude may wreck the recovery.

01-04-2011, 09:51 AM	#14
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Republican politicians are in a bind unless they are total idiots, which is generally not the case: 1) They know that taxing the rich more makes sense because the rich have more money. 2) They promised they wouldn't tax the rich more in order to get elected. 3) If they break that promise they lose the donations they need to be re-elected. How can they escape this logical trap? Term Limits maybe?

01-04-2011, 11:19 AM	#15
JohnInIndy Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 794	Originally posted by jeffkrol Poll: To Reduce Deficit, Most Americans say Tax the Rich More - Political Hotsheet - CBS News CBS? Not too biased to the left now is it? Of course they are. Lets get some unbiased results shall we? And remember it also depends on how the question is asked. What about adding "Create tax/business incentives so businesses hire more thereby increasing the tax base of productive Americans?"